The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK BLAPL No.4365 of 2023 Petitioner Manu Duria Mr.Ananta Narayan Pattanayak,Adv. -versus- …. State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. D.Mund, AGA CORAM: DR.JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI Order No. Dated Police Station F.I.R. No. 66 27.07.2020 Semiliguda Sections Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29of the NDPS Act.
Decision
ORDER 30.08.2023 of Case No. and Courts’ Name T.R.Case No.43 2020 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Koraput 01. 1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 3. The petitioner being in custody in Semiliguda P.S. Case No. 66 of 2020 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 43 of 2020, pending in the court of learned Additioinal Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Koraput for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, has filed this application. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner along with nine other persons were carrying contraband ganja in a Max Pickup vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-10-H-1074 with intent to handover the same to another vehicle i.e. Eicher vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-55R-3106 stranded in an isolated place on the road. At that time, the police having received reliable information stopped the vehicle, but all the occupants of the vehicles fled away from the spot. The Police after observing all formalities of search and seizure as enshrined in NDPS Act recovered and seized 921 Kg. of contraband ‘ganja’ and registered the case and took up investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner who had absconded from the spot was remanded in this case on 12.07.2022 when he was in custody in connection with another case. The petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 12.07.2022. Some co-accused persons who are similarly situated with the petitioner have Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 // 3 // already been released on bail by order dated 22.06.2022 in BLAPL No.5249 of 2022, 03.02.2021 in BLAPL No.6001 of 2020 and 16.02.2022 in BLAPL No.7336 of 2021. Though chargesheet has been submitted in the case since long the trial has not yet commenced. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that right to have speedy trial is a fundamental right of a citizen. Hence, keeping a person in custody for such a long time without any trial is not justified and violative of his fundamental right. The importance of speedy trial has been emphasized in the case of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has iterated that: it is "Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just" procedure the guaranteed by Article 21 and constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The State cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no the adequate necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial." resources financial incur to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 Page 3 of 6 // 4 // 7. He further argues that the period of long incarceration suffered, which entitle the Petitioner for grant of bail. Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an under trial prisoner and this observations have been resonated, time and again, in several judgments including that of Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar1 wherein it has been held that the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in a country like ours, where the large majority of the accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the society and are not versed with laws and after face the dearth of competent legal advice. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But an accused cannot be disentitled from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial. 8. The Supreme Court has also held in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 that incarceration has further deleterious effects where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as 1 1981)3 SCC 671 2 SLP (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily. 9. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner with the submission that the petitioner has twelve criminal antecedents. Hence, he does not deserve to be released on bail. 10. On the otherhand, learned counsel for the petitioner files an affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has already been released on bail in all those cases. 11. Without going into the merit of the matter at this stage and based on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of detention of the petitioner in custody without trial, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid case by the court in seisin over the matter on some stringent terms and conditions as deemed just and proper with further conditions that: i. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Police on each Monday between 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. till conclusion of the trial; the petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity in future; Page 5 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 // 6 // iii. the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in any manner; 12. Violation of any of the conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 13. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands allowed. Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Lingaraj Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LINGARAJ BEHERA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Orissa High Court,Cuttack Location: Authentication Date: 01-Oct-2023 16:47:01 Page 6 of 6